By 1973 the Civic Society of St Ives was firmly established as a central forum for debate about the town’s future. Regular meetings in the Free Church Hall often attracted 60 to 100 members, a notable number for a voluntary society. Steady growth in membership kept subscriptions low and finances stable, even as the Society’s activities expanded.

From the start, the Society pursued two clear aims: to educate about St Ives’ history and character, and to act as an informed voice on planning and conservation. Early talks set the pattern, linking local history, such as a lecture on the philanthropist Potto Brown, to wider issues of social responsibility and the built environment.

St Ives grew rapidly between 1961 and 1971, increasing residents by 75 percent from 4,082 to 7,148. The maps below show the extent of housing development between 1960 and 1974, with new estates outlined in red.

The pressing question at the start of the period was the outcome of the November 1972 relief road inquiry. It was a defining moment for the Civic Society, which had fought for an eastern route and against a western one, yet no decision had been announced. Nothing in the minutes records it, yet the wait must have been fraught with anticipation.

Did the County Council Delay Communication?

It appears the Civic Society did not learn of the Inquiry’s decision until over two years after its completion. Before August 1975 there is no evidence in committee minutes or members’ meetings of frustration, or even discussion, about the lack of news.

The first indication appears in the minutes of an August 1975 committee meeting, convened to consider a letter from the County Council enclosing a plan for an eastern relief road. The proposal was broadly welcomed, though with reservations, and a letter expressing the committee’s views was sent to the County Council.

It seems the Society was unaware that the County Council had been told two years earlier the eastern route had been selected by the Inquiry Chairman, or that it had received the full report in June 1973, seven months after the Inquiry closed. In October 1973 the Society’s chairman, Humphrey Warren, was still publicly arguing the case for an eastern route, apparently unaware the decision was already known to the Council.

If the County Council delayed informing the Society, whether through dissatisfaction with the outcome or while considering its implications, this prompted no recorded protest. The August 1975 minutes suggest the Society may not even have known such a delay had occurred.

Outcome of the Inquiry

The Inquiry findings were reported to the Secretary of State for the Environment. The formal decision and report was sent to the County Council in June 1973. That report described St Ives as a historic market town with a severe traffic problem centred on its narrow medieval bridge, which provided the only river crossing for several miles. Increasing car ownership, town growth and pressure from surrounding villages led to frequent congestion, particularly in the town centre. The need for a new crossing and relief road had been recognised in planning documents since the early 1950s.

Four possible routes were considered. The County Council’s preferred option was the western route, running across Hemingford Meadow and joining Ramsey Road near the Waits. Two eastern alternatives were also presented by the Council, a short eastern route close to existing residential areas and a longer eastern route further from the town. A fourth option, the mid eastern route, was proposed by the St Ives Civic Society during the inquiry.

The County Council argued strongly in favour of the western route, citing lower cost, earlier delivery and better service for local traffic. It maintained the route had long been established in approved plans and that objections were based on misunderstandings about its visual and environmental impact. Traffic studies suggested most traffic using the crossing had business in the town rather than passing through.

Opposition to the western route was substantial and wide ranging. The Rural District Council, the Civic Society and many residents argued the western route would cause irreversible damage to Hemingford Meadow, the River Ouse, the Waits and the setting of the parish church, all regarded as central to the town’s character. They also contended that the western route would offer only short term relief, requiring further intrusive road widening within a decade.

Objectors favoured an eastern solution that would protect historic and residential areas while better accommodating long term traffic growth. The Civic Society argued that land released by the closure of railway facilities made an eastern route increasingly feasible, and environmental costs should carry greater weight even if financial costs were higher.

The Inspector concluded the western route should not be rejected without strong reasons, noting its lower cost and advantages for local traffic. However, he found two considerations outweighed these benefits. First, the long eastern route offered greater capacity for future traffic growth. Second, broader environmental and social impacts weighed heavily against routes that cut through established residential and conservation areas.

Applying the principles set out in the government White Paper Development and Compensation: Putting People First, the Inspector concluded the intrusion and harmful effects of the western and short eastern routes were unacceptable. He judged the long eastern route, though more expensive and less convenient for local traffic, would better separate traffic from homes and protect the town’s environment.

The Inspector recommended planning permission for the western route be refused and the County Council urgently pursue a revised scheme based on the long eastern route, with design changes to minimise harm to affected properties and land uses. He also emphasised the urgency of resolving St Ives’ traffic problems without further delay.

The Secretary of State accepted the Inspector’s conclusions and formally refused planning permission for the western route. While recognising the seriousness of congestion in St Ives, he agreed the environmental damage would be unacceptable. The Council was encouraged to investigate alternative routes, particularly the long eastern option, so that a more sustainable and informed decision could be made in the future.

To read the covering letter and report, click Inquiry Report.

Celebrations for the Civic Society?

Such a resounding success for the Society might be expected to prompt rejoicing. Instead, it exposed divisions. Mr Richards, local Area Secretary of Amey Roadstones on the Broadway, was a strong supporter of the western route and a frequent critic of the Society. In 1973 he began a talk entitled Sand and Gravel and St Ives by criticising the irrelevance and unsuitability of previous speakers’ subjects!

Mr Richards objected that the committee had not consulted members before writing to the County Council, accusing it of acting high handedly. His preference for the western route was unsurprising, as an eastern route threatened disruption to his employer’s gravel extraction east of St Ives. In 1977 he claimed the eastern relief road was ’the worst thing that happened to St Ives for many years’.

Instead of celebrations, the routine established from the start of talks to members continued. A strong emphasis was placed on understanding the historical development of St Ives itself. Talks and illustrated lectures explored the town’s evolution from the Saxon settlement of Slepe, through its medieval role as a market and river port, to the rebuilding that followed the Great Fire of 1689.

Speakers encouraged members to look again at familiar streets and buildings, drawing attention to surviving medieval plot widths, historic routes such as Thicket Walk, and the commercial importance of the river frontage. The Crown Inn, Crown Yard, Bridge Street and the Broadway featured repeatedly as places where history, commerce and modern pressures intersected.

Slides and reconstructed maps played an important role in these meetings. They helped members visualise lost buildings and former layouts, and reinforced the Society’s belief that conservation was not about freezing the town at a single moment in time, but understanding layers of change and managing future development with sensitivity.

National and international debates about urban development and conservation were included. Talks on medieval European towns, Renaissance planning and the growth of cities such as Cambridge provided members with a wider framework for thinking about their own town. Speakers contrasted the organic growth and enclosure of medieval towns with the anonymity of much postwar development.

Such talks reinforced the Society’s resistance to inappropriate developments, and strengthened its arguments when objecting to insensitive proposals in St Ives. They also helped members articulate why certain modern schemes felt wrong, even when they met technical planning standards.

Nature, Footpaths and the Wider Landscape

Environmental concerns became more prominent from late 1973. Meetings on birds, wild flowers and insects introduced members to the richness of the local countryside and the threats it faced from agricultural change, drainage and development. A particularly influential strand was the discussion of public footpaths and countryside access. Talks on local walks highlighted the often illogical routes of historic rights of way, also explaining how they had come into being through centuries of informal use.

There was growing interest in whether the Civic Society might play a role in protecting and improving footpaths, bridges and signage. Trees and the river were also recurring concerns. Committee discussions noted unnecessary tree felling, welcomed new legal protections for trees in conservation areas, and explored the amenity and historical importance of the river. These debates reflected a widening understanding of conservation as something extending beyond buildings alone.

Nature, Footpaths and the Wider Landscape

Environmental concerns became more prominent from late 1973. Meetings on birds, wild flowers and insects introduced members to the richness of the local countryside and the threats it faced from agricultural change, drainage and development. A particularly influential strand was the discussion of public footpaths and countryside access. Talks on local walks highlighted the often illogical routes of historic rights of way, also explaining how they had come into being through centuries of informal use.

There was growing interest in whether the Civic Society might play a role in protecting and improving footpaths, bridges and signage. Trees and the river were also recurring concerns. Committee discussions noted unnecessary tree felling, welcomed new legal protections for trees in conservation areas, and explored the amenity and historical importance of the river. These debates reflected a widening understanding of conservation as something extending beyond buildings alone.

Membership, Organisation and Civic Confidence

Throughout the period, the Society’s internal life remained stable but not static. Annual General Meetings were well attended, finances were sound, and membership rose to well over 250 by the mid-1970s. Speakers usually charged little or nothing, and volunteers contributed extensively, from designing posters to organising exhibitions.

There was, however, an awareness of potential complacency. Repeated re-election of the same officers prompted occasional unease, and efforts were made to encourage new committee members and wider participation. The Society also became more visible in the town. Exhibitions, slide shows and cooperation with centenary celebrations brought its work to a broader audience. By 1975, it was clearly recognised as a serious civic voice, consulted by planners and amenity societies alike.

St Ives at a Turning Point, 1976–1977

By the later years, the Civic Society was increasingly conscious St Ives was changing rapidly. New housing north of St Audrey’s Lane had transformed the town’s population, raising concerns about social integration as well as physical development.

Discussions ranged from the condition of riverside buildings and the reuse of industrial sites to everyday irritations such as litter, derelict plots and unsightly signage. Members were encouraged to see these not as trivial complaints but as part of a wider struggle to maintain civic standards and pride.

To view the Society’s minutes for this period, click Civic Society of St Ives minutes 1973-1977.

To view more information about the Society’s history, click Civic Society of St Ives.

This project is a collaboration between the Civic Society of St Ives and St Ives 100 Years Ago.